John, I think we're rehashing an earlier debate, but...
> I realize there are organizations with uncooperative DNS managers who > make it hard to install the key records needed. I wouldn't be > surprised if some of us even work at such organizations. But a local > optimization that ends up demanding extra work from the rest of the > world to work around one's DNS management is, to put it mildly, not a > great idea. If DKIM is going to be deployed, part of the deployment > will be to figure out how to get the required records installed. > This isn't quite a fair characterization. It's not *just* uncooperative DNS managers, but software limitations, differing budget lines, actual distinct operating entities where DNS is offered as a service, etc. I would expect that this problem is likely to persist in nearly every S&P 500 company, a number of governments and educational institutions. So when you call this a 'local optimiziation', maybe it is true in the academic sense, but the scope of the locality is quite large. Eliot _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
